To: d:oug who wrote (33569 ) 8/4/1998 3:26:00 AM From: d:oug Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35569
Chuca, nullification of me asking you if you is a warlock. Taken not the way I intended as a simple joke, it could be taken as an off color spiritual joke, and this I don't want to be. To get back on IPM matters, I hope all is clear now in regards to informing/pledging to Charles your ipmcf shares to be used only so that a special meeting is forced upon IPM to meet with shareholders. And I do not know the logistics of what this would be, and most likely noone else at this point does either. Nice to know, but first the number of votes has to be near gotten. Maby it will be one or more people. Maby it will be from these five persons, maby not. How it will be decided can be decided by us all when Charles says that we are close to getting the number. Lets focus on getting the number needed. And I don't know if the people(s) have to go to the IPM headquarters or to the IPM work site or another mutual selected location. I don't know anything on how the meeting will be conducted, or what kinds or type of flow of information is needed or required. Maby someone else that has experience or knowledge about this can do some research into this so its not all a suprise. If the procedure for this type of action by shareholders is documented, then maby 90% of what the company has to do can be accomplished thru fax machine, and the other person/person can be accomplished thru a telephone. Maby noone has to physically go to the IPM location. We just need to know "our rights" and we need to know any tricks or tackets to look out for if its not to be a nice friendly meeting. Maby if IPM would not wait for a news-wire to let us know why they won't get with the shareholders, maby if IPM really came forward of their own freedom and desire it would be better for both sides. Doug